Board index ‹ God

[Socks]

> mostly in the realm of idolatry and ritual purity. There's nothing here about crime or hatred.

It literally says to kill them, how is that not hateful?

> The ancient world knew very little (if anything at all) about loving, consensual same-sex relationships. In the ancient world, homosexuality was mostly based on power (masters could rape slaves of either sex) abuse or pederasty (child sexual abuse). It was also prominent in religious worship (honor the fertility god by going to the temple and having sex with a man or woman). The ancient world knew no such thing as loving, consensual same-sex relationships. It's anachronistically inaccurate to read our world back into theirs.

That's very wrong.

I study Celtic history, so I can only really speak for that, but consensual same-sex relationships were quite common in ancient Ireland.

Then the Romans claimed this about the Celts: Although they have good-looking women, they pay very little attention to them, but are really crazy about having sex with men. They are accustomed to sleeping on the ground on animal skins and roll around naked with male bed-mates on both sides. Heedless of their own dignity, they abandon without qualm the bloom of their bodies to others. And the most incredible thing is that they do not find this shameful. When they proposition someone, they consider it dishonorable if he doesn’t accept the offer!”

There's also the fact that Cuchulainn and Ferdiad were both male lovers.

Also, are you really saying that no male Israelites fell in love? What proof do you have of this?

> Since we can't know ANYTHING about God unless He reveals Himself to us, we can only know anything about His nature and character based on that revelation. What we are left to evaluate is the truth of the revelation. What we are NOT free to do is say, "Well, this is how you have revealed yourself, but MY opinion is such-and-such, and therefore God is such-and-such." That's like reading an article proving that the Corona virus originated in Wuhan, China, but saying, "Well, I think it came from Bolivia." Our opinions don't make something so.

Well, god has never revealed himself to me, where am I supposed to get my beliefs of him from beyond the bible and history?

> Well, this is where it would help if you knew the Bible, and knew something about the God you were misrepresenting. There is nothing in the Bible, and no evidence, that God is evil and loves to cause suffering.

What about the fact that he sends millions of innocent people to hell? If he loved us, why wouldn't he let us into heaven?

> And your accusation that "he tortures people every day" is again a misunderstanding. I mean, of course you're free to believe all the falsehoods you want, but don't put them on God. Since you know you're talking to a Christian, then you also know that we're talking about the God of the Bible, and so you're not free to make up stuff. We have to go by what the Bible says, and none of these three things stand the test of examination.

Well, like I said, he tortures people in hell every day, and he lets people starve, how is that not evil?

> But let's talk some more. Obviously there are misunderstandings here that should be ironed out before you go any further in life. It would be unconscionable for me to let you go on with these false assumptions and misunderstandings. Let's talk.

What am I misunderstanding?

[jimwalton]

> It literally says to kill them, how is that not hateful?

Capital punishment is not a matter of hate, but of justice. The court doesn't act in a person vendetta against an individual, but seeks to maintain a just and moral society.

> That's very wrong. ... I study Celtic history... etc.

My research comes from...
Walton & Walton, The Lost World of the Torah
Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament
research on law codes in the ancient Near East
James Brownson: Bible, Gender, Sexuality
Sarah Ruden: Paul Among the People
and dozens of articles.

I don't consider what I've said to be wrong. It's based on research.

> Also, are you really saying that no male Israelites fell in love? What proof do you have of this?

I didn't say that, but there's no proof in any written record that I know of that claims such a thing. It's not legitimate in argumentation to say, "There are no records that no male Israelites fell in love, therefore we can claim that they did."

> Well, god has never revealed himself to me, where am I supposed to get my beliefs of him from beyond the bible and history?

The Bible and history, and I could throw the natural world into the mix as well, are *exactly* how God has revealed Himself to you. God's primary mechanism of self-revelation was the covenants recorded for us in the Bible. So God has revealed Himself to you. It's our job to read that and learn about Him.

> What about the fact that he sends millions of innocent people to hell?

This is where it would help to know the Bible. It is never taught in the Bible that any innocent person is in hell. The Bible is quite consistent in its teaching that guilty people go to hell.

> Well, like I said, he tortures people in hell every day,

This is another place it would help if you knew the Bible. That's why I'm glad we're talking. Hell is not described as a place of torture. God doesn't torture anyone, and there's no biblical text that says that. Hell is a place of agony, however. It's the agony of being separated from God, the agony of having willingly and knowingly rejected the truth and facing the consequences of our own choices. God doesn't torture anyone.

> and he lets people starve

Are you talking about here on Earth? He doesn't let people starve. WE are responsible for that. The Earth has enough capacity to feed its inhabitants. I heard a statistic once that the American plains have enough capacity to feed the world all by themselves if they were farmed to capacity. But we can add to the the farms of Central and South America, the agricultural capacity of parts of Russia, the cultivatable areas of Europe and Africa.

God isn't starving anyone. It's politics, warfare, economic leverage, corruption, bigotry, and crime that starve people.

> What am I misunderstanding?

I hope I've been clear about that. Let's keep talking.

[Socks]

> I don't need to defend the Bible. It has stood like a bulwark of truth for millennia.

It's not true, it's evil.

> Obviously not, because God can only do what God should do. It is inescapable that the Bible consistently and without exception teaches that homosexuality doesn't conform to God's holiness. So He distinctly should not have said, "If a man sleeps with a man as he would with a woman, accept him, and end your tradition of stoning." Had He said that, He would have negated his own holiness and what it means. God cannot contradict His own character.

Is god too weak to change his morality? Can't he change the definition of holiness? Why should we conform to his holiness, anyway?

> God is always working to bring people into conformity with His nature and to be like Him

Why should I?

> Anything that is a source of separation from God, whatever it is, needs to be set aside for the sake of truth, life, and a relationship with God.

I have to ask again, why? Why should we care about god?

If he wants me to live and see the truth, why did he command my death?

> It is the ultimate value in life and the decision in life that matters most of all, superseding all other life values and circumstances.

I disagree incredibly.

[jimwalton]

> It's not true, it's evil.

Billions upon billions of people through history have found the Bible to be life-giving, life-changing, and a gift to society. Christianity has brought to world law, science, education, medical care, philosophy, art, music, morality, and goodness. People have been rescued from addictions, changed from lives of anger and hate, and turned from crime to productivity. The Bible has a track record of good that stretches across time and cultures.

But I'll grant you one thing: The Roman Catholic Church has shown quite the opposite through history, and their false version of Christianity is deplorable.

> Is god too weak to change his morality?

It's not a matter of weakness. This shows your bias, which is coloring your thoughts. Morality is objective. The fact that you think God's morality should be changed shows that you think God is immoral, not moral, and that's what He should change. But you misperceive the nature and character of God, and therefore misconstrue the question. There is no need to change perfection.

> Can't he change the definition of holiness?

No more than you can change the definition of circle.

> Why should we conform to his holiness, anyway? ... Why should I?

It's what you were made for, and where you will find fulfillment, completion, freedom, truth, and meaning. It's where you will find greater thoughts, deeper wisdom, and clearer reality.

> If he wants me to live and see the truth, why did he command my death?

Anyone who doesn't side with life sides with death. If you don't choose truth, you accept falsehood. If you want to live, come to God. But I'll warn you: it means you'll have to conform to truth and reality, to love and life, and you will no longer be able to follow whatever path you want. You'd be committing yourself to a path of truth, right, love, life, and meaning. It's a narrow path, and many choose against it. But the choice is yours, and the consequences of your choice is all yours also.

[In the House]

But the entire concept of maximal greatness is absurd. Maximally great in what way? Maximally great in their ability? Well if god cant do no evil then is he maximally great? My point is that a maximally great being is an inherently incoherent and absurd concept.

Lets say i have 2 beings. One morally dualistic, and one only omnibenevolent and both very powerful. In regards to their abilities, the dualistic god could do both good and evil things, while the other god could not, the the dualistic god would be more powerful then the omnibenevolent god. He cant be maximally powerful and maximally good all at once.

Also this entire argument pressuposes goodness and badness as inherent properties in things (moral realism) which doesnt make much sense at all. What does it mean for something to be good? What does it mean for something to be bad? Saying god is good is a meaningless taughtology that just means "god is god". It doesnt reveal any useful information about his nature.

Also, if god is the standard by which we should base our morals on, it creates a lot of problems. For example, take the ressurection. The Father allowed The Son to die so everyone could be saved. But is that really justice? I say it isnt. If a judge allowed his own innocent son to die so criminals could escape their sentence, would that be just? If you think the answer to that is no, then The Father, by definition, would not be just. And if the essence of god is just, then the The Father does not share the essence of god, and should does be excluded from the trinity.

[jimwalton]

> But the entire concept of maximal greatness is absurd

I don't why it's absurd. The object at hand (God) is a being of such that no greater being can be conceived. That's neither a difficult concept nor an absurd one. Many of us can conceive of a being who is all good, all-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent. There are within our grasp, and there's nothing logically absurd about them, understood properly.

> Well if god cant do no evil then is he maximally great

Omnipotent doesn't mean or imply that God can only be all-powerful if He can also be self-contradictory. Now that's absurd. All-powerful means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills . He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm. What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

What "maximally great" does not include is absurdities, such as...

• He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
• He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
• He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
• He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. Luke 13.34. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
• He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.

There's nothing incoherent about it, nor absurd. God is self-consistent, not self-contradictory, and His character is practical and real, not absurd.

> Lets say i have 2 beings.

And what makes you think that the ability to do evil shows a greater power? In my mind, it shows a lesser power, because one cannot exert what is necessary to maintain goodness. He is weak, vulnerable, and without the capacity to do only good.

> Also this entire argument pressuposes goodness and badness as inherent properties in things (moral realism) which doesnt make much sense at all.

It makes perfect sense. We all admit that there is such a thing as good and evil. We also understand that our ability to recognize them is based on a mutually recognizable definition of good and badness with enough consensus to make communication meaningful. And if we have such a consensual definition, there is a standard by which we are able to measure things to know their category. And if there is such a standard, there is a source of such a standard. It makes sense that the source of such a standard is itself moral and personal. This is straight logic, not incoherence.

> What does it mean for something to be good? What does it mean for something to be bad?

You know quite well. Raping women is bad. Killing children for the fun of it is bad. These things are evil, and we all know it. We also recognize goodness: love, care, sharing of resources, helping another. We all know these things.

> The Father allowed The Son to die so everyone could be saved. But is that really justice?

Absolutely. If I were to run into a burning building to save you or someone you love, do you have a problem with that?

> If a judge allowed his own innocent son to die so criminals could escape their sentence, would that be just?

The atonement is more than just substitution. It is also paying off a debt. it is also covering your sin so that it can be forgiven. It's a straw man to reduce atonement to make a point.

The Father is sending the Son because the Son volunteered to go. It's all out of love. There is nothing unjust about it. He did it for YOU. He died so you can have a relationship with God. He made the sacrifice so you could be free. And He issues to the invitation to you even now to come to Him to have life, freedom, and love.

[Socks]

> Billions upon billions of people through history have found the Bible to be life-giving, life-changing, and a gift to society. Christianity has brought to world law, science, education, medical care, philosophy, art, music, morality, and goodness. People have been rescued from addictions, changed from lives of anger and hate, and turned from crime to productivity. The Bible has a track record of good that stretches across time and cultures.

You also burned witches (My people) forcefully converted people, destroyed cultures, and killed gay people, doesn't sound good to me.

> It's not a matter of weakness. This shows your bias, which is coloring your thoughts. Morality is objective. The fact that you think God's morality should be changed shows that you think God is immoral, not moral, and that's what He should change. But you misperceive the nature and character of God, and therefore misconstrue the question. There is no need to change perfection.

I perceive god as horribly imperfect, he is the pinnacle of darkness and hatred.

If god can not change objectivity, is he not omnipowerful? I thought he could do anything?

> It's what you were made for, and where you will find fulfillment, completion, freedom, truth, and meaning. It's where you will find greater thoughts, deeper wisdom, and clearer reality.

I've been christian before, it was the worst time of my life.

I was depressed, I self-harmed because I thought god hated me for being gay, I had daily nightmares of hell, and I was stupid.

It wasn't until leaving Christ that I came to fulfillment, I accepted myself, I began studying instead of praying.

> Anyone who doesn't side with life sides with death. If you don't choose truth, you accept falsehood. If you want to live, come to God. But I'll warn you: it means you'll have to conform to truth and reality, to love and life, and you will no longer be able to follow whatever path you want. You'd be committing yourself to a path of truth, right, love, life, and meaning. It's a narrow path, and many choose against it. But the choice is yours, and the consequences of your choice is all yours also.

If god wants me to be happy, why would be make me walk a painful, oppressive, manipulative path? Why wouldn't he want me to be free?

That is evil.

[jimwalton]

> You also burned witches (My people) forcefully converted people, destroyed cultures, and killed gay people, doesn't sound good to me.

I'll admit that christianity has some dark splotches on it because of misguided people. I never claimed the record of Christianity was spotless. But I do claim that (aside from the record of RCC, as I mentioned), that the balance is massively hugely on the side of benefit and not harm.

Every discipline has its wackos, and every movement has dark stains on it. Whether education, science, politics, business, religion, philosophy, or the arts, there is always an idiot who spoils the village. What we look at is the concepts at the core, the philosophy involved, and the majority outcome by true adherents, and not those of the extreme and violent.

> I perceive god as horribly imperfect, he is the pinnacle of darkness and hatred

Your perception is not based on what the Bible says, but instead on something else. I don't know whether you had a bad experience, or you misunderstood something you read in the Bible, or someone lied to you about the Bible, but it's not an accurate perception.

> If god can not change objectivity, is he not omnipowerful? I thought he could do anything?

A perfect being cannot cease to be perfect. That's a self-contradictory absurdity, and it's absurd to think that if a perfect being were really all-powerful, He could make Himself to do stupid and wrong things. That doesn't make a shred of sense.

> I've been christian before, it was the worst time of my life.

I'm sorry to hear this, but until I knew more it would be foolish of me to make a comment.

> I began studying instead of praying.

Just for accuracy's sake, we don't have to choose between studying and praying. I do both, quite deeply and often. I hope no one told you, "Don't use your brain, just pray." If so, that's at least one part of misunderstanding that not only isn't helpful, but it's just plain wrong.

> If god wants me to be happy, why would be make me walk a painful, oppressive, manipulative path? Why wouldn't he want me to be free?

God isn't oriented to your happiness but instead to your wholeness, completion, freedom, and holiness. Happiness is somewhat based on circumstances, is often shallow, and quite temporary. Happiness isn't the goal: the fullness of life is the goal.

> That is evil.

There's nothing evil about life, truth, freedom, fulness, fulfillment, significance, love, and peace. Those are the things the Bible teaches.

You know, I can "hear" in your writing some real pain. I'm sorry you've experienced such pain, and for some reason, somehow, that pain is associated with God, the Bible, and Christianity. Personal pain is an awful thing, and subsequent things like depression, self-loathing, bitterness, and misery are horrible things to go through. I don't know what happened to you, and at whose hands they happened, but I sympathize with your personal agony. I'm sorry life has been that way for you.

If I can be of help in showing you what God is really like and what the Bible really teaches, I'd be glad to continue with you whatever conversation you would like to have. Just making myself available to you to that end.

[In the House]

> And what makes you think that the ability to do evil shows a greater power? In my mind, it shows a lesser power, because one cannot exert what is necessary to maintain goodness. He is weak, vulnerable, and without the capacity to do only good.

The same would apply to a good god who cannot do evil.

> It makes perfect sense. We all admit that there is such a thing as good and evil

I dont. Not in any objective sense atleast.

> We also understand that our ability to recognize them is based on a mutually recognizable definition of good and badness with enough consensus to make communication meaningful.

No such consensus exists, at leats not universally. Even amongst christians, issues of morality are contested.

> If I were to run into a burning building to save you or someone you love, do you have a problem with that?

Well if you gave someone matches knowing full well they were going to light the house on fire, then yea i would have a problem with it. Sure they performed a good act by saving that person but they also performed a bad act by giving them the match in the first place.

> You know quite well. Raping women is bad. Killing children for the fun of it is bad. These things are evil, and we all know it. We also recognize goodness: love, care, sharing of resources, helping another. We all know these things.

I cant claim to know these things are bad. I feel they are bad. I intuit it. But to the claim that these intuitions correspond to an objective property of the world would need to be justified. To even be able to claim that we know god is good, we would have to show that to be true, which we cant. We can only take his supposed word for it.

Also there are instances in the bible where god commands the killing of children or kills children as a pubishment to the parents. Such as the Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12) even though he did not have to do that. Or remember when Samuel told Saul that god said too kill all of the Amalekites? "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." now yes, there are all sorts of hypothetical reasons God could command this. Perhaps he sees the elimination of the Amalekites as the only way to prevent them from attacking israel again? But this to me seems odd. Wouldnt a loving god tell them to make peace? Why not bring their army to justice, and let the women and children be? Couldnt God at least justify why he was commanding that they should kill everyone and everything? And why kill the cattle and sheep as well? This seems awefully and unnecessarily brutal. Especially considering how their army would be in need of supply and resources. Soldiers arent free. They need food and supplies. Sparring the animals or letting the Israelites take them for themselves would have been far more humane and sensible and even rational. And there are many other instances od god commanding the killing of innocent lives. Not to mention all the unnecessary death from disease and plagues and other natural disasters which affect christians and non-christians alike today.

Also, you claim god cant be flawed but in the same passage about the malakites, it reads

"And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

" How can the lord have regret if he is not flawed? God is all knowing so surely he did forsee this? Why would it even make sense to use the word regret in that context? Regret mean you wish you could do something different. But god doesnt change his mind, so why would he regret making Saul king?

> The Father is sending the Son because the Son volunteered to go.

I mean that doesnt really address the issue. I agree the son volunteered. But in my example, the innocent man does too.

> There is nothing unjust about it.

I mean if you agree that a judge letting an innocent man voluntarily suffer for the crimes of the guilty then yea.

> The atonement is more than just substitution. It is also paying off a debt. it is also covering your sin so that it can be forgiven.

I mean I dont see how jesus's suffering attones for the sins of humanity. This would imply that sin is like some sort of bar tab. I can offer to pay your bar tab for you and so jesus, because he is both human and divine, can pay your infinite sin tab for you by just dying. This doesnt seem to me to be just. No functional legal system opperates that way. I cant offer to go to jail for someone. In fact, im pretty sure that in itself would be a crime.

[jimwalton]

> The same would apply to a good god who cannot do evil.

So this proves your case doesn't hold. If it can go either way or be true in either sense, then your assertion that it proves God is not omnipotent is untrue. It doesn't prove that, because the same same scenario could show exactly the opposite. Therefore your argument doesn't hold.

> I dont. Not in any objective sense atleast.

So killing a child for the fun of it is not necessarily evil? It might be OK in certain circumstances? And rape might just as well be good as evil, depending on the conditions? To me that's a not only untenable (no one lives that way), but also horrific. Imagine a world where people lived with that philosophy. Awful.

> No such consensus exists, at leats not universally

You mean we can't and don't all agree that killing a child for the fun of it is wrong? I disagree with you. No one, but NO ONE, in any culture at any time thinks this is OK, let alone right.

> Well if you gave someone matches knowing full well they were going to light the house on fire, then yea i would have a problem with it

Well now you've changed the situation. Of course making that change changes the situation.

> But to the claim that these intuitions correspond to an objective property of the world would need to be justified.

The evidence justifies it. There is no culture anywhere in any period of history who regards that killing a child for the fun of it is right. None. It's an objective standard that all humanity through all of history has held.

> there are instances in the bible where god commands the killing of children or kills children as a pubishment to the parents. Such as the Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12) even though he did not have to do that.

You misunderstand this situation. It wasn't the punish the parents, but to judge the entire culture. The entire culture was in moral collapse, and the next generation was being trained to make it even worse. Sometimes the only way to stop something is to stop it at its source.

> Or remember when Samuel told Saul that god said too kill all of the Amalekites?

Of course I know this text. If you've read it, you can see that Saul was conquering a single city (they waited in a ravine to ambush them), and there was no slaughter of the innocents. They killed the soldiers who were in pursuit. There was no genocide, only the conquering of a city and killing its soldiers.

> Perhaps he sees the elimination of the Amalekites as the only way to prevent them from attacking israel again?

The Amalekites were around for at least a thousand more years. There was no elimination, no genocide, no killing of the innocents. If you want to discuss it more, we can, but you need to see how you have misunderstood the Bible and based on your anger and bitterness on incorrect readings. You've been taught to hate a book (and God) for false reasons. I'd love to talk more.

> And why kill the cattle and sheep as well?

The word *cherem* (usually translated "totally destroy") means "remove from human use." Sometimes that means destroy, but often it means to dedicate it to the Lord, like a field that becomes the property of the temple or a appliance (like a pot) that is for temple use. The animals weren't being killed, they were being saved for the temple to use (not the soldiers). Instead, Saul presumably let a bunch of the animals go and kept the rest for himself and his men, which is not what God had commanded. These animals were for temple use, not for his soldiers.

> How can the lord have regret if he is not flawed?

Because you're misreading the concept of regret. Again, I would urge that you read the whole Bible to understand it, not just cherry pick "gotcha" texts. The word is נִחָם (*nicham*), and it can mean regret, but can also mean "to suffer grief." As you look at the whole text, we can see that God is grieved by Saul's disobedience, and He must make a change in Israel's leadership. Saul's sin created an imbalance that must be righted, and so God determines, on the basis of Saul's disobedience and godless attitude (it's not the first time Saul has shown this), that he needs to be replaced. That's what's going on here.

I fear that you have rejected the Bible and God for the wrong reasons you've been lied to or lied to yourself—and when you stand before God, you're going to be left with nothing to say.

> I dont see how jesus's suffering attones for the sins of humanity.

There are different ways of looking at the substitution concept (Jesus' death for my sins). On the one hand, if someone wants to pay a monetary debt in our place, we're grateful. On another hand, if someone innocent wants to serve a jail sentence for a convicted criminal, we think that's not fair, and rightly so. Jesus' death for us are more like the first rather than the second, according to the Bible.

If you have a debt of, say, $50,000, and a friend of yours steps up and offers to pay it for you, just because he's your friend, you would (I bet) gladly accept. It's the same thing here. Each of us has a debt, a debt of sin and the payment is death (Rom. 6.23). So instead of money, the debt is life. Jesus stepped up and offered to pay it for you, just because he loves you. He has a right to be generous with you if he chooses. You may logically object, "Life is different from money." Not as far as the definition of debt is concerned. You may object that money debt is different from punishment debt. Let's look at the technicalities of the law. Supposing a slave back in colonial America was due to receive 40 lashes, and another man stepped up and offered to take the 40 lashes in his place. Technically as to the law, as long as the 40 lashes got delivered to a back, the law was served. That's the point here. Technically, as long as the punishment is paid, justice is served.

The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. The pay sin doles out is death. Humans sold themselves out to sin, and we are now enslaved to it. Death is the inevitable result for each one of us. But Jesus freely and willingly took that punishment for us; he was qualified to do that because he was the only sinless person and therefore didn't deserve it. After all, there's no effectiveness for one life-sentenced prisoner to say he'll also serve time for another, or for one person hopelessly in debt to take on the debt of another hopeless indebted person. The only real justice lies in someone being able to be the substitute who actually can be the substitute.

You probably have more questions. Feel free to ask more.